Talk:Guenhwyvar
Guenhwyvar a Minor Artifact? Here is a quote from the Dungeon Master's Guide (3rd edition): "Minor artifacts are not necessarily unique items. Instead, they are magic items that no longer can be made, at least by common mortal means." From the 4th edition DMG: "Artifacts are unique, named magic items whose creation or existence can't be explained by the normal laws of magic. ... An artifact cn't be created, disenchanted, or destroyed by any of the normal means available for other magic items. ... Artifacts are sentient - although they're not necessarily communicative - and they have their own motivations." Guenhwyvar definitely fits both descriptions, especially the latter's. If you read "Guenhwyvar" (the first story in Realms of Magic), her creation is definitely out-of-the-ordinary, and not even explainable by her creator and first possessor. She's most definitely sentient and has her own motivations - just ask Masoj Hun'ett. "Bazaar of the Bizarre: The Items of the Drizzt Saga" (Dragon #386) classifies her statuette as a "wondrous item", which the Adventurer's Vault describes as: "Wondrous items include a hodgepodge of trinkets, devices, and oddities that can't be placed within the normal equipment slots." I think to describe her as a "trinket" or "device" is to not do her justice. What does everyone else think? Cronje (talk ⋅ ) 22:50, August 13, 2011 (UTC) :As far as I'm aware Guenhwyvar does not exhibit any of the typical properties of an artifact. It is not a unique item (as one of the many figurines of wonderous power), it can be damaged and even lose its enchantment. :The only unique feature is the creature it summons, guen. Which in iself is not really an artifact worthy capability, as many spells (planar binding/gate) can all be used to summon unique creatures of much rarer and impressive power. :As for the method of creation it was a known process by josidiah (hence knowing that she would be killed), who himself confessed not knowing much about enchanting items....even going as far to say that there are many such items in the world. Anders was after all basing the item on a similar figurine that he and his mentor had used before. :The uniqueness of the statue is not the magic invloved or its creation...but the creature it summons.--Eli the Tanner 01:33, August 14, 2011 (UTC) :: On the contrary, it was Anders Beltgarden who created Guenhwyvar (or at least prepared the materials for the enspelling), and he was quite skilled at enchantment. Also, as he says early in the story, the creation of the statuette requires the death of the animal, which never happened. Here is a quote from "Guenhwyvar", following the statuette's creation: :: :: That quote clearly shows that it is something beyond the common figurine of wondrous power. Guenhwyvar shows signs of sentience and her own motivations (disobeying a direct command from Masoj Hun'ett), and (since the two were there at the time of its creation have no idea how it was accomplished) its "creation or existence can't be explained by the normal laws of magic". Cronje (talk ⋅ ) 02:19, August 14, 2011 (UTC) ::: I say go with 4th Edition Artifact. Guenhwyvar is definitely unique and powerful. And she can't be destroyed unless there is the case of planar gates and rips, which are definitely beyond normal means of magic. Drow2626 03:00, August 14, 2011 (UTC) Obviously, it will be impossible to say for a fact what kind of item Guenhwyvar in fact is. After all your talking about an item that has been described in every edition of D&D from 1E to 4E. And it's a bit clumsy to say Guenhwyvar was one type of item and then 'spontaneously' changed into another item type, and explain that out three times. How about we just go with Guenhwyvar is a '''unique' magic item, and leave it at that.(Bloodtide 13:56, August 14, 2011 (UTC)) : The consensus I seek isn't necessarily for wiki classification (though if her statuette is an artifact, I think she should be classified as such, for when people visit Category:Artifacts), but also because it bugs me personally. Her statuette is a figurine of wondrous power, in that it's a figurine and that it holds wondrous power, but I think the method of her creation and the powers granted by her becoming bound to the statuette should classify her as a true, albeit minor, artifact. Cronje (talk ⋅ ) 23:38, August 14, 2011 (UTC) Discrepancies The works of RAS have consistently stated that Guen may remain on the Material Plane for up to a half a day (12 hours) every other day. It is the lorebooks which have incorrectly changed this to only 6''' hours. It should be noted that Guenhwyvar existed as a giant panther before Anders Beltgarden contracted to have a figurine constructed for her (the short story "Guenhwyvar"). He captured her and held her in a cage for months while the statuette was being fabricated and enchanted. Since she predates the figurine and her namesake short story, set in 253 DR, therefore we don't really know how old she is. '''Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves called Guen's statuette a "unique figurine of wondrous power" (p37). That should settle that debate. Somehow, Guen passed from Josidiah Starym through a long string of handlers, mostly goodly, and eventually into the hands of the drow of Menzoberranzan, where she stayed for centuries (Siege of Darkness). (Maybe there should be a link to the Josidiah article for more info on that.) It is unclear whether Masoj Hun'ett's claim that he received the statuette as a gift from a denizen of the lower planes was true (Homeland), or if he was making things up in order to make himself sound important. Why was Guen originally described as needing her figurine to be set upon the ground before summons/dismissal, and why has that since changed so that Drizzt may summon or dismiss her on the fly, with the figurine in hand, or even still in his belt pouch? There seems to be no real requirement for the figurine to be set down, and only risk and danger. Maybe Masoj introduced the ground-placement ritual for drama's sake in his magic castings, and Drizzt, being his magical student at the Academy of Menzoberranzan, mistakenly continued to set the figurine on the ground for decades to come? Perhaps some reference should be made to that. RAS has said in the Interactive Threads on his RAS Forums that he intended for Guen to be a female from the beginning, but editors along the way chose to change this to the male gender. It is for this reason that Guen's material panther form is described as a "he" or "him" in all three books of "The Icewind Dale Trilogy". Later, other editors embraced the notion that a figurine of wondrous power's animal form should not have a gender at all, but should rather be neuter, so many books (beginning with Homeland) began to describe Guen simply as "the panther", "the cat", or "it". However, RAS managed to sneak a line about Guen actually being female in Sojourn, when a young Catti-brie meets Guen for the first time and remarks that "she's a beautiful cat". The books waffled for a time on this issue, but eventually Bob's original vision of Guen as female prevailed. Is Bob's claim that he originally saw Guen as female actually true, or is it revisionist history on his part? He has told how his editor complained to him that his first manuscript of The Crystal Shard lacked any major female characters, which led to the character of Catti-brie being hurriedly given minor speaking parts, without any actual action scenes. (Contrast her passive role in that finished novel with her active role in any other story in which she appears, and you can see this.) Is Bob's claim that Guen was originally supposed to be female only a way of answering his first editor's criticism, that there were too many males, and not enough females? --BEAST 23:13, April 14, 2012 (UTC) :"Guenhwyvar" is a variation of the name "Guinevere" of Arthurian legend. You can see the different syllables here. (One possible translation is "White Ghost", rather ironic on a black panther.) Its modern form is "Jennifer". RAS discusses it in this interview. I don't know whether RAS originally thought of her as female or not, but she certainly had a female name. -- BadCatMan 02:33, April 15, 2012 (UTC)